JUDGMENT Mr. Kundan Singh, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellants against the judgment and order dated 24.4.79 passed by Sri Surya Prasad, IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur in S.T. No. 210 of 1978 whereby the appellants have been convicted under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentenced to two years' R.I., each. They also have been convicted under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and sentenced to 5 years' R.I., each. The appellants Brijlal Singh and Jai Singh have further been convicted under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced to three years' R.I. each. 2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that S.N. Tiwari, Station Officer, police station Lalauli, Distt. Fatehpur received some information that some dacoits were to collect with illegal fire arms and ammunition and they were likely to commit dacoity hence after recording the information from the informer in the G.D. at Serial No. 4 at the police station at 12.20 a.m. on 14.4.76, he proceeded with the force towards the bank of Jamuna and they reached village Koriknank and took the witnesses Jhandi Singh, Raghuraj Singh and others. Thereafter they reached at the bank of Jamuna river and searched for the miscreants, but they could not be dressed out. While searching for the miscreants, they reached at the ghat of Korikanak village where they found a boat. On inquiry from the persons present in their fields, they informed that 5 or 7 persons, including Madhav Singh and Brijlal Singh, R/o Jauhapur, police station Taidwari, Distt. Banda, Sukhram Kevat R/o Bahdoli Pailani, Distt. Banda, and one Brahmin R/o village Jauharapur, who were armed with guns, Country made pistols and rifles had gone towards village Paigambarpur. Then the party proceeded to village Paigambarpur. In the way they could receive an information that the miscreants were sitting at the door of Amar Singh with all arms and ammunitions at about 12.00 O'clock in the day. The house of Amar Singh in the village Paigambarpur was surrounded by police and witnesses and the miscreants were challenged. The police party found Madhav Singh armed with a rifle, Sukhram with a gun, Brijlal Singh and Jai Singh with country made pistols and Amar Singh and others with lathis. As soon as they were challenged, the miscreants started firing the police party. The police party found Madhav Singh armed with a rifle, Sukhram with a gun, Brijlal Singh and Jai Singh with country made pistols and Amar Singh and others with lathis. As soon as they were challenged, the miscreants started firing the police party. The police party also fired shots but all the miscreants wielding lathis succeeded in making good their escape and none of them could be arrested and it is said that the miscreants were recognised by the police party as well as witnesses. The F.I.R. was lodged at 5.00 p.m. on 14.4.74 by S.N. Tiwari, Station Officer at police station Lalauli, Distt. Fatehpur. Only three persons namely the appellants Brijlal Singh, Amar Singh And Jai Singh were challenged. The appellants denied the charge, pleaded not guilty and claim to be tried. 3. The prosecution examined constable Vimal Chandra, Jhandi Singh, Raghunath Singh and S.N. Tiwari, Station Officer as the PWs 1, 2, 3, and 4 in order to prove the factum of incident, while P.W.5 S.D. Verma, Sub-Inspector, investigated the case and after completion of the investigation submitted charge-sheet. The accused persons denied the prosecution version. The accused Brijlal Singh stated in his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code that the witness Jhandi Singh is a man under the influence of local police, Badri Singh and Jhandi Singh are one. There had been a dispute between Badri Singh and Amar Singh in respect of a plot of land and a Panchayat was convened to that connection. Amar Singh who is his relative was not ready to leave the land in that Panchayat, hence he has been falsely implicated in the present case. The appellant Amar Singh also made similar statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Appellant Jai Singh stated that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. 4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of prosecution witnesses held the accused appellants guilty of the offences charged with and convicted and sentenced as stated above. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the state. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that is a case in which police party fired various shots and the accused party is also said to have fired in response but nobody either on the side of the police party or the dacoits received any injury. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the appellants and learned Counsel for the state. The learned Counsel for the appellants argued that is a case in which police party fired various shots and the accused party is also said to have fired in response but nobody either on the side of the police party or the dacoits received any injury. According to him the entire prosecution case is false and concocted and the accused appellants have been falsely roped in the present case due to enmity. None of the accused person is said to have been arrested nor any incriminating article had been recovered from their possession. The learned Counsel for the appellant also argued that the prosecution case is highly improbable and the incident could not have taken place in the manner as stated in the prosecution. He also argued that the evidence on record is inconsistent and unreliable. 6. I Meticulously examined the evidence and the above submission, Mode by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The prosecution has examined P.W. 1. Constable Vimal Chandra as the eye witness of the incident. He admitted in his cross-examination that at about 11.00 a.m. he could know about assemblege of the miscreants at the ghat. He also admitted that the firing took place between the accused and the police party from a distance of 200 yards while S.N. Tiwari (P.W.4) station officer, police station Lalauli stated that when he reached at about 4.30 a.m. in village Dadiyar Deta, he received an information about the presence of miscreants and he could know the names of those miscreants at that ghat, at about 7.00 or 8.00 a.m. He also admitted that the miscreants were sitting at a distance of 200 or 300 yards from where they fired shots. The police party also fired shots challenging them. The miscreants were chased upto a distance of 2 or 3 miles but none of them could be arrested. 10 or 12 shots were fired from the side of the accused party and at that juncture he did not have time to summon additional force and call the fire arm licensees of the village. He denied to have given his statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code that the miscreants, wielding their lathis had run away towards north. 7. 10 or 12 shots were fired from the side of the accused party and at that juncture he did not have time to summon additional force and call the fire arm licensees of the village. He denied to have given his statement under Section 161 Criminal Procedure Code that the miscreants, wielding their lathis had run away towards north. 7. The prosecution has also examined two public witnesses namely Jhandi Singh and Raghuraj Singh as P.Ws 2 and 3, respectively, in order to prove its case. Jhandi Singh admitted in his statement that at about 7.00 or 7.30 a.m. he was called by some Inspector through one Constable. He denied to have given his statement before the Investigating Officer that the police party told him about the informer and that they reached Dadiyar at about 4.00 a.m. He was also confronted with the statement that he gave before the Investigating Officer that one unclaimed boat was found on the ghat and they would know about the fact of Madhav Singh, Brijlal Singh, Jai Singh, Amar Singh and one other persons have illicit fire arms and ammunitions had gone towards chak Paigambarpur. The witness, stated that he was told about 6 or 7 miscreants, but the names of those miscreants were not disclosed to him and he could not say how it had been written that the miscreants had gone towards the village Paigambarpur. He could know the names of miscreants at the door of Amar Singh. He stated that the distance from the place where from the miscreants fired shots was 30 yards only. He admitted that he was a witness in a police case. He was a recovery witness in another case. Raghuraj Singh (P.W.3) stated that he reached village Dandiyar at about 9.00 a.m. The statement given to the Investigating Officer in which he had stated that the police party including these witnesses reached village Dandiyar at about 4.00 a.m. was put to him. He denied to have given such a statement to the Investigation Officer. He could not further given out any explanation as to how such a statement was recorded by the I.O. The statement that he gave to the I.O. that the miscreants had run away wielding lathis was put to him but he denied to have given that statement also to the investigating Officer. He could not further given out any explanation as to how such a statement was recorded by the I.O. The statement that he gave to the I.O. that the miscreants had run away wielding lathis was put to him but he denied to have given that statement also to the investigating Officer. He admitted that the Police party challenged the miscreants from a distance of about 50 or 60 yards. He also admitted that the firing took place in the abadi while the other witnesses stated that it took place outside the abadi. He was a licence-holder. He also admitted that Jhandi Singh was also a licence holder. 8. There is vital difference and inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses regarding place where from the miscreants were challenged. One witnesses says that it was 50 or 60 yards, other says it was 200 yards while 3rd says that the miscreants were challenged from a distance of 200 ur 300 yards. In my opinion, it was not possible for the witnesses to recognise the miscreants from a distance of 200 or 300 yards and none of the accused persons sustained any injury. Moreover two public witnesses being licensees of fire arms could be said to be under the influence of local police. There are also discrepancies regarding the place where from the witnesses could know about the prescence of the miscreants and also about their names. 9. Thus in my opinion, the evidence is not consistent and reliable for sustaining the conviction of the appellants. The prosecution has thus miserably failed to bring home guilt to the appellants on the basis of the evidence adduced by it in the instant case. 10. Consequently, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The conviction and sentences as awarded by the learned trial Judge are hereby set aside. The appellants are on bail. They need not to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged.